fix: replace keyring module to Cosmos' fork

[raynaudoe]

Description

Closes: #10220

---

Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

• included the correct type prefix in the PR title
• added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
• provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
• followed the guidelines for building modules
• included the necessary unit and integration tests // Not applicable
• added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
• included comments for documenting Go code // Not applicable
• updated the relevant documentation or specification // Not applicable
• reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
• confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

• confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
• confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
• reviewed state machine logic
• reviewed API design and naming
• reviewed documentation is accurate
• reviewed tests and test coverage
• manually tested (if applicable)

[julienrbrt]

lgtm but I have same the question than in the previous PR (ref #12938 (comment))

[alexanderbez]

ACK. I think we should address @julienrbrt's comment though.

[raynaudoe]

lgtm but I have same the question than in the previous PR (ref #12938 (comment))

Since this is a fork of a module, replacing all occurrences of 99designs/keyring to cosmos/keyringin the code, IMO it's very dirty, that's why I went for using golang's replace.
Still, I can make a PR upstream to 99design, but don't know how active is that repo really.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #12952 (4bebf18) into main (4fe7797) will decrease coverage by 0.29%.
The diff coverage is 61.44%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #12952      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   55.87%   55.58%   -0.30%     
==========================================
  Files         646      647       +1     
  Lines       54895    54900       +5     
==========================================
- Hits        30675    30514     -161     
- Misses      21762    21921     +159     
- Partials     2458     2465       +7     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
server/swagger.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
simapp/app.go	82.66% <0.00%> (+3.55%)	⬆️
x/auth/tx/service.go	0.00% <ø> (ø)
x/distribution/keeper/params.go	75.00% <ø> (-3.58%)	⬇️
x/distribution/module.go	64.28% <ø> (ø)
types/dec_coin.go	98.41% <50.00%> (-0.79%)	⬇️
snapshots/manager.go	56.91% <57.14%> (+9.32%)	⬆️
store/cachekv/store.go	86.87% <76.47%> (+7.75%)	⬆️
crypto/keyring/keyring.go	61.95% <100.00%> (ø)
types/events.go	84.65% <100.00%> (+0.35%)	⬆️
... and 22 more

[julienrbrt]

lgtm but I have same the question than in the previous PR (ref #12938 (comment))

Since this is a fork of a module, replacing all occurrences of 99designs/keyring to cosmos/keyringin the code, IMO it's very dirty, that's why I went for using golang's replace.

Still, I can make a PR upstream to 99design, but don't know how active is that repo really.

That'd be great!

[tac0turtle]

does this need to be added into the upgrading.md?

cc @julienrbrt

[julienrbrt]

I don't think so, given all previous versions have this replace too:
https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/release/v0.46.x/go.mod#L162-L163
https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/release/v0.45.x/go.mod#L142-L143
Maybe, we should have a section in the docs (but no UPGRADING.md) (https://docs.cosmos.network/main/migrations/intro) that chains are expected to use the same replace directives that are present in simapp.